Greater percentage of wrecked cars being scrapped rather than repaired

You have to consider that today's crumpling cars are not doing as much human damage, so that has to reduce insurance rates. Been in the hospital lately? One surgery and you've bought a car. That doesn't even consider injury lawsuits. One of those and you've bought an airplane.

Your shift to bitching about electronic "doodads" has nothing to do with the subject of this article, does it? I wonder about that too. It seems to me they're pretty careful to make sure they get a lot of your money if you get a nice looking car with good performance. Not sure why they do that, but that's life. Any cheap car with good styling will evolve to a bloated parody of itself over time.

halogens.

I don't get it. My car has a few 'gimmicks', e.g. a retractable roof that is almost completely automatic. The new version of the car does have a fully auto soft-top, i.e. no hand intervention at all. My car has this gimmickry to achieve what it does. The new version has even more electric motors and sensors.

Would I want to go back to a fully manual soft top of the thirties, or even to that of a Mazda MX-5 (Miata to you in NA)? Certainly not.

I could have bought a car without all that, namely the nearest hardtop saloon (sedan). But I didn't.

Would I want to go back to pre-engine management days and higher fuel consumption? Certainly not.

Etc

Define gimmickry.

DAS

Yes, in Europe air bags & seatbelts are an integral system. As a result the air bags are, I understand, smaller in Europe.

DAS

Not, apparently, a widespread problem in Europe. I have had some bumps that seemed quite severe (not crashes) but the air bag did not go off.

Regarding the comment about mandatory insurance, are you telling me that in some US states you can drive without insurance at all? Or are you just talking about comprehensive insurance?

DAS

That is something that somebody else's car has and yours doesn't and about which you are jealous. :-)

Matt

in some US states you can drive without insurance at all? Or are you just talking about comprehensive insurance?

Giggle Cream - it makes dessert *funny*!

Your right to drive without insurance comes ahead of the right of others to be compensated if and when you screw up?? I think not.

IF you have enough money and assets to cover the expenses of an accident and resulting litigation, fine. Self insure.

If you do not have enough money to pay the insurance premiums, as insane as they are, you cannot afford to drive PERIOD.

as they are, you cannot afford to drive PERIOD.

Why do you own so many cars if you can't afford them and can only drive one at a time?

I> f the MANDATORY insurance covered the DRIVER

Do you have kids or are you just making this up? I do, and I definitely know I have four of them, not "3 or 4".

("sorry kids, I have to buy

Since when have the police been operating check points for uninsured motorists? How are you going to get caught unless you a. get in an accident (and need insurance), or b. get pulled over for a traffic violation (which you could avoid by being a careful driver).

Your motorcycle is actually a much higher risk. Not in the cost of repairing it, but in the cost of repairing you if you get in an accident.

I'll buy that there is something fishy going on with the insurance companies and the politicians. Insurance definitely could be cheaper. But you have also left out another reason you need insurance. If you are financing or leasing a vehicle, the bank wants to get its money if you wreck it.

know I have four of them, not "3 or 4".

repairing it, but in the cost of repairing you if you get in an accident.

companies and the politicians. Insurance definitely could be cheaper.

financing or leasing a vehicle, the bank wants to get its money if you wreck it.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

~ Paul aka "Tha Driver"

I heard recently about a feature on a new car (Lexus???) where a moisture sensor will automatically turn on the wipers. That's a gimmick in my mind. And I would guess there are situations (like very light mist) where the system fails to do what it should.

John Keith snipped-for-privacy@juno.com

In my car I have a winscreen wiper setting which adjusts the wiper speed (from zero) according to the amount of rain. I actually use it quite a lot, but I am sure I could live without it. Lots of cars have them.

Could I do without it? Probably.

Would I demand it? No.

Do I mind it's there and/or worry it might fail? No.

DAS

Someone said "insurance industry crash test.." etc

I am curious if there have been studies and results comparing the use of a mobile cell phones (even a mounted one) in a moving vehicle with MDTs (mobile data terminals aka telematics). Is it my imagination that the similarities far far outweight the differences. So why is one an offence, the other a growing industry. Any further links appreciated.

NL

This thread prompted me to double-check the terms of my insurance cover...

I have what is known as fully comprehensive, even on my wife's 11-year-old vehicle. To keep the premiums down I have only authorised both of us to drive each other's vehicle. To allow any driver would raise the annual cost a lot. Of course, certain people are still authorised to drive, such hotel valets and garage mechanics.

What is compulsory in the UK (and probably elsewhere in Europe) is third-party liability and under my policy I have this cover for any other car (and motorbike) I am authorised to drive excluding hired cars (which, of course, have their own insurance). There are many drivers on the road in the UK who don't have this (I have been hit by one) and, IIRC, the insurance industry maintains a payout fund for such instances. To me it is a given that such insurance must be compulsory and it is not possible to license a car without it.

Even well-off people who could afford to replace somebody's written-off USD

Of course, any cover beyond liability must be dependent on the vehicle as the cost of cover depends on the value (and desirability to thieves) of the vehicle (or this that not obvious to some people?).

Thus I am still puzzled by the content of the rant. If it was once possible to drive without any insurance, then in my opinion that was gross negligence on the part of the authorities. Are we ranting about the compulsion to any insurance, or just fully comprehensive?

DAS

Actually eating french fries and screaming at your kid in the back seat rank about as bad as cell phone use.

My 300M turns on the headlights if the wipers are on 10 seconds. I could live without it but I like it. NC law requires headlites on in the rain.

vehicle. To keep the premiums down I have only authorised both of us to drive each other's vehicle. To allow any driver would raise the annual cost a lot. Of course, certain people are still authorised to drive, such hotel valets and garage mechanics.

third-party liability and under my policy I have this cover for any other car (and motorbike) I am authorised to drive excluding hired cars (which, of course, have their own insurance).

USD 25K vehicle could not pay the USD 100 000 property repair costs or 500

the cost of cover depends on the value (and desirability to thieves) of the vehicle (or this that not obvious to some people?).

possible to drive without any insurance, then in my opinion that was gross negligence on the part of the authorities. Are we ranting about the compulsion to any insurance, or just fully comprehensive?

Giggle Cream - it makes dessert *funny*!

You're KIDDING! That would be right at the top of my "things I'm gonna find a way to disable" list.

I would never drive someone else's car if I wasn't shown on that person's driver list (unless it was insured for any driver) unless that owner accepted that I would not pay for any damage to his car, as my insurance would not pay for that car's damage (only third-party liability).

It's a good thing I am not in a position to drive my own car in the USA as I would not, it seems from what I have read in this thread, want to drive in those states where not even third-party liability insurance is mandatory. Any joy rider could crash into me and not have to pay and not be liable for an offence. The damage would be paid out of my insurance and my premium loaded accordingly. In practice much the same happens in the UK, but at least the perpretator is committing an offence by driving uninsured. (May be committing another one by driving a stolen car, of course.)

Just in case not clear, I as driver am insured to drive other cars on third-party liability only. Additional cover is car-specific.

You CANNOT lend the car to someone else with the same level of cover unless you are paying to permit any driver. To mitigate premiums insurers allow linited lists of drivers.

I have never inquired what it would cost to insure myself to drive ANY car. It's obviously done by businesses such as garages, hotels, car park operators etc.

Clearly fully comprehensive cover costs are a function of car type/cost and drivers, as all of these contribute to the risk.

The fact that drivers with insured cars have NO cover for other vehicles may be a drag, but doesn't seem to me to be a big deal as it's just another way of allocating insurance costs. I doubt many people are seriously affected by this.

In general I agree with your comments about uninsured motorists. After all, the legitimately insured motorists pay for the reserve fund. I have seen the estimated UK figures; can't recall the amounts exactly, but it's several percent (5%?) of the premium.

I think you have two issues:

- Compulsory insurance. Personally I strongly support compulsion for basic cover.

- Reluctance to pay out. I am sympathetic to this, as insurance companies tend to try to hang on to their money. It must be said, tough, that there are quite a few fraudulent and/or inflated claims also. In the UK the market has come to be dominated by one company which has grown by acquisition, but they seem to be quite good at paying out.

DAS